![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 48. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 20:35:38
I am seeking to start a non-controversial thread on the Politics board.
So I'll bring up the Geneva Convention. U.N. established to avoid horrors like the whole world going the way of Nagasaki. Torture such as occurred in Nazi concentration camps not a good thing.
I expect no one will disagree with me there.
And it was recognized by the delegates to the Convention, that however utopian, a United Nations had to be practical. Wars, abhorrent as they were, would not be abolished by a nice plaza in midtown Manhattan. Indeed by 1950 there was some problem that resulted in deadly force being used in the vicinity of Seoul.
But torture of combatants is wrong. If wars must be fought, captured soldiers must be treated fairly. It's one thing to blow someone's head off in clean combat, quite another to take a feeding tube and stick it up someone's nose till person's vicinity is spattered with blood and vomit.
In America, till quite recently the leader of the First World, we don't even torture prisoners of ghastly crimes. An eye for an eye may have been good enough for Hammurabi, but we've come a long way since then. I regret the death penalty, but that aside, torture of serial killers is not engaged in systematically here as a public spectacle.
Now Donald Rumsfeld has a problem with the Convention. And so does Dick Cheney. The guy who replaced the disgraced Irvene Libby is an architect of the anti-Pentagon faction within the Administration- yes, that's right- that wants to flout the Geneva Convention.
I said anti-Pentagon. It is easy to see why the Pentagon would have a stake in upholding it as best they can- they are in the business of conducting wars, and soldiers, and even generals, have been known to get captured. It is not in those soldiers' or generals' interests to have captors who view the Geneva Convention as an unnecessary restriction on their right to do whatever they want.
I would like to know if my statements are as uncontroversial as they seem, and perhaps if Dick Cheney or Libby's replacement freqents this site, he can tell me why it is good American policy to torture prisoners, even if one were Osama bin Laden's janitor in some high-tech cave and couldn't explain just what it was he intended to do with that ammonia (he certainly didn't plan on making a dirty bomb with it). I describe a fictional character, but for all I know he could have been mistakenly put on some Bush Administration deck of cards because he looked like the Chemical Ali of Afghanistan, and a zealous CIA operative terrified that he was going to be the next one outed by an indiscreet Administration official decided on the basis of this resemblance and the fact that he was found with ammonia and a mop (both of which, if found on a street in Chicago, would put this country on Code Red for a week) to pad his resume with a capture of the 34th highest ranking member of al Qaeda.
The unfortunate janitor now can be tortured in defiance of the Geneva Convention.
To guess what a White House scriptwriter might say in rebuttal, I might offer this.
Torture someone for long enough and they will crack. They will offer up any fairytale they can think of to get the torture to stop.
And on the plus side, the witch trials weren't so bad. Drown enough people, and you're bound to drown a witch too.
The framers of the Geneva Convention did overlook the great success the witch trials achieved. After all, are there any witches left?
Maybe the Geneva Convention wasn't such a good idea anyway.
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:14:02
In reply to Geneva Convention, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 20:35:38
As argumentative as I like to be, you won't get one from me in this case.
It boggles my mind that the country I love would even consider this.
The Patriot Act (is this doublespeak) scared me when it passed and it scares me now.
-----------------------
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will
not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by zeugma on November 4, 2005, at 19:31:57
In reply to Re: Geneva Convention » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:14:02
> As argumentative as I like to be, you won't get one from me in this case.
>
> It boggles my mind that the country I love would even consider this.
>
> The Patriot Act (is this doublespeak) scared me when it passed and it scares me now.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will
> not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Thomas Jefferson
>auntie mel, i am exhausted.
the story i told about Osama bin Laden's janitor was purely fictional. I have learned that there is a man named Salim Ahmed Hamden, allegedly Osama bin Laden's DRIVER. He was captured in 2001 and a federal appeals court ruled that he is not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Today the Supreme Court justices are deliberating his appeal.
The story appears in today's NY TImes, written by Milt Bearden, former member of the CIA's Directorate of Operations involved in activities during the Afghan CIA supported resistance to the Soviets (ironies abound here, but I pass on.) He urges that the justices uphold the Convention in this case, or we will be guilty of moral trespass and make the our own troops in grave danger.
Now I wonder what revelations can be gotten out of bin Laden's driver through torture. You know, I don't even want to know. I'm sure that enough torture will cause Hamdan to tell a story pleasing to his captors.
I regret what has happened to my country.
But what is so shocking about this is the shamelessness, the utter illogic.
The American Psychiatric Association has denounced the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees.
C.Anderson Hedberg, M.D., Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D., and Ronald F. Levant, presidents of the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association, respectively, write of the McCain proposal to stop these Geneva Convention violations,
"The fate of this propsal deeply concerns American health professionals. Our ethics codes condemn torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatent and prohibit health professionals from supporting such abuses."
-New York Times, Friday, November 4, 2005.
I take this as the end of Dr. Bob's doublespeak.-z
Posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2005, at 23:19:40
In reply to Re: Geneva Convention » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on November 4, 2005, at 19:31:57
If you would like to contact your Senators and Representative by email to urge them to support the McCain amendment, you can visit www.congress.org . Click on State Officials and enter your zip code. You can then send personalized emails to your state officials.
If you would like me to provide you with a sample script when writing your email, feel free to Babblemail me. I hesitate to post it here, since it's a one-sided view. You may also write your own message, urging either support or not support of this amendment. Either way, I believe it's important to make our voices heard.
Of course with all the amendments being voted on yesterday, it may have already been passed (or not). Not quite entirely up to date.
gg
Posted by lil' jimi on November 7, 2005, at 0:50:47
In reply to Re: Geneva Convention » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:14:02
mel mel writes:
> The Patriot Act (is this doublespeak) scared me when it passed and it scares me now.
>truth in labeling should require it be called
The FASCIST Act.please note:
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/this-ought-to-give-you-pauseand-then.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
Posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
In reply to Re: Patriot Act: Fascist Attack on our democracy, posted by lil' jimi on November 7, 2005, at 0:50:47
You mismanage a situation the consequences of which become the justification for the original mistake and the ones that follow. This is such a common pattern that it suggests something about us as a species.
Declan
Posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:48:52
In reply to The Reichstag all over again » lil' jimi, posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
Declan,
as much as i will hate to be doomed to repeat history least i ignore it, i am completely whelmed by our risks in our immediate current affairs.
but you are right.
and there should be a name for this syndrome.
i suspect there is and hope someone will enlighten us.vigilance,
~ jim
Posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 7:28:26
In reply to Re: The Reichstag all over again » Declan, posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:48:52
> ...i am completely whelmed by our risks in our immediate current affairs.
I thought my hubby was the only one who said "whelmed".
It's a great word!
:)
gg
Posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 11:19:18
In reply to Off topic » lil' jimi, posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 7:28:26
my greetings to speakers of Whelm,
> I thought my hubby was the only one who said "whelmed".
>http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=whelm
let your mate know that my merriam-webster 10th edition CD says
"whelm" had been an English word since the 14th century.> It's a great word!
>the whelmers apprecaite your endorsement.
and thanks.
we should ask pB socialers to list their favorite words.> :)
>;D
> gg
>whelm on!
~ wordhead jim
Posted by zeugma on November 8, 2005, at 16:18:57
In reply to The Reichstag all over again » lil' jimi, posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
> You mismanage a situation the consequences of which become the justification for the original mistake and the ones that follow. This is such a common pattern that it suggests something about us as a species.
> Declan
yes, but don't people study history for a reason.i see many parallels between the era of the Reichstag and this one, and it does not make me happy. Sacrificing the Geneva Convention, beyond the unjustifiable suffering it will directly cause, is a symbolic getsure of the highest importance. Unfortunately it seems to be back page news here in America.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 22:03:03
In reply to Re: over topic » gardenergirl, posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 11:19:18
Cool, I had no idea!
gg
Posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
In reply to Re: over topic » lil' jimi, posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 22:03:03
> Cool, I had no idea!
>
> ggyou're welcome, gg ...
but to reinforce and support zeugma's thrust here ...
discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful. It heaps discredit on every member of our military and intelligence services.
it speaks volumes that Sen. John McCain leads of the opposition.
it is madness.
it is self-defeating.
it is wrong.
it is pernicious.i support z's protests against this deranged affront.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
In reply to Geneva Convention, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 20:35:38
z,
check out Steve Clemons at
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001075.html~ j
Posted by AuntieMel on November 9, 2005, at 17:20:08
In reply to Re: z's geneva convention topic, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
Besides losing any semblance of taking the moral high road there is another reason this is dangerous.
If any of ours get captured the capturers have a new excuse not to obey the accords themselves.
Posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » zeugma, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
thank you j for the reference.
The author picked up on the Reichstag analogy nicely.
Repudiating the Geneva Convention has effectively undone whatever progress Western civilization has attained since the fall of Nazi Germany.It is truly, truly frightening.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2005, at 20:47:31
In reply to Re: z's geneva convention topic, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
> discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 0:12:04
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » zeugma, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
Harpers (11/05), quoting Amnesty, has a figure of 100 deaths of detainees and 27 confirmed homicides. So the best part of 127 deaths by torture for operation Iraqi freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. That (of course) is not the number of cases of torture.
I've been giving the antiamerican issue some thought after Verne raised it. What I feel is not antiamericanism. I simply feel a deep and abiding anger at the current set of rulers of the US, UK and Australia. I feel they have been dishonest and that they dishonour our countries' best traditions.
Declan
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 1:10:17
In reply to Re: The Reichstag all over again » Declan, posted by zeugma on November 8, 2005, at 16:18:57
You know Zeugma, since reading "Blood for Oil" I wonder about parallels between now and pre-WWI.
Russia, China and the USA, the oil pipelines, the seperatist movements backed by different powers.
Declan
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 11:28:10
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
z,
the extent to which they, who oppose banning torture by our (US) services and their agents, have impugned the united states can not be overstated ... except here, where we must moderate our phrasing for other reasons ...
that it is now in fact possible and is in fact actually happening that a person can be designated an "illegal combatant" by executive fiat, lose all Constitutional rights, be held without charges or any recourse to any judicial review, in a secret CIA prison in an unnamed foreign country ... ... ... and TORTURED ... ... ...
... all funded with the tax dollars of american taxpayers ... is as undeniable as it is beyond belief.please, excuse me, but what was it that my country was founded for?
this makes me extremely angry and profoundly sad.
these are nontrivial reasons for my daily antidepressant dosage.i think when there is a discussion about bad torture versus good torture, it should not be non-controversial.
i think it should be a big controversy.
it should be a controversy that there could even be any debate at all.to restrain an incarcerated person and deliberately inflict pain on them FOR ANY reason is wrong.
this must be repudiated.
here and everywhere.
even if we (i) do have to tone it down some here.civilly,
~ j
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 11:48:31
In reply to Re: please be civil » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2005, at 20:47:31
dear dr. bob,
doctor bob posts:
>> (i wrote:)
>> > discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful.
>> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.it would be all too easy to complain about rules of civility which are used to protect the feelings of torturers and their supporters from being hurt.
so i won't do that. no sport in it.
and it would not be constructive.
... besides, i understand the rules. they serve another purpose and are mission-specific to this forum.
... i will gladly accept your cautionary as the useful coaching, Which i Need to be able to trip the babble fantastic.
... that i might not trip and fall unto the trespass against the civil order here.
... and i see that all as a good thing.thank you for your guidance.
~ jim aka "lil' jimi"
.... just don't call me "late for supper".
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 12:20:15
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e, posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 0:12:04
hi declan,
with my barest of knowledge of social psychology, even i know about the "Obedience to Authority" experiments done by Stanley Milgram at Yale in the 60s
(see http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/Milgram-experiment.htm)
and even more specifically relevant, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" done by Philip Zimbardo in 1971.
(see http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Stanford-prison-experiment.htm)if we understand what these experiments reveal about human nature, what should we expect when these conditions are replicated at Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray and at Abu Ghraib, let alone any other God-forsaken place hidden from our view?
but for me it is not about being anti-American.
those who are guilty of perpetrating these crimes against humanity are the anti-American ones.
no uncivility intended,
~ jim
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 13:08:28
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » Declan, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 12:20:15
There is an academic here (Australia) in some law department made who the usual arguments in favour of torture (What if ripping someone's fingernails out would save a thousand lives, let's regularise it, we can't rule it out). It was controversial and dealt with in the quality press, but it would only take (the expected) terrorist attack to make such arguments more acceptable. I've been dreading what such an attack would do to politics here. It's already bad enough.
Declan
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 19:42:49
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
this letter was published in the washington post.
it was written by Chicklet's brother-in-law.
it seemed on topic for our thread.Tuesday, November 8, 2005; A18
There's Never an Excuse for Torture
Abuse, inhumane treatment or torture of any person in any place under any circumstance is wrong. Anyone who advocates the use of torture or inhumane treatment for any reason should be viewed with contempt. Abusing or torturing a captured enemy is an act of cowardice.
The Post has reported that some government officials advocate exceptions to a policy of absolute prohibition of inhumane treatment and that some are working in opposition to legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ["Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees," front page, Oct. 25 and "Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy," front page, Nov. 7].
Because The Post cited unnamed sources, it is unclear whether allegations that the CIA and members of the executive branch are trying to derail efforts to prohibit inhumane treatment of our captured enemies are true. I hope the sources are misinformed, for the alternative is too disheartening to contemplate.
Our nation, conceived in liberty, could just as easily die in tyranny if not for constant efforts to maintain our basic values. Rosa Parks courageously fought tyranny. I believe Mr. McCain is fighting the noble fight, too.
It is time for all people of conscience to do the same. If we do not resist the efforts by some to endorse the use of torture, the terrorists will have won.
CHRISTIAN MACEDONIA
Bethesda
The writer served for a year in Iraq as chief of the medical staff for the Army medical task force sent to Abu Ghraib in response to the Taguba report on detainee treatment. The views expressed here are his own.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 21:36:30
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e, posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 13:08:28
declan writes:
> There is an academic here (Australia) in some law department made who the usual arguments in favour of torture (What if ripping someone's fingernails out would save a thousand lives, let's regularise it, we can't rule it out). It was controversial and dealt with in the quality press, but it would only take (the expected) terrorist attack to make such arguments more acceptable. I've been dreading what such an attack would do to politics here. It's already bad enough.
> Declandeclan, declan ...
i do not mean to be one-upping you here.
... and it so in keeping with the braggart Texan motif ... ... i live in austin ...
there are a lot of the r*dneck elements which australia and texas have in common ..."an academic" you say?
well, it's not like your chief law enforcement officer (Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales) is known to have helped author the white house memo on torture and referred to the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.
see
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040607/editors
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536
http://kbonline.typepad.com/random/files/gonzales_memo_on_gen_conv_january_25_2002_pt_1.pdfor when the vice president's chief of staff (I. Lewis Libby) was indicted for obstruction of justice, David Addington, the chief author of the white house torture memo gets promoted to replace Libby ...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/01/1518210
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9917435/
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1030nj1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Addingtonthere is practically no (positive) quality in the mainstream media here and only lately have they begun to deal with any of this. ... ... but only after someone got re-elected a year ago ... ...
if only this were some ramblings of some denizen of academia's ivory towers ...
... instead of major operators within the administration of the world's only super power ...take care,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on November 11, 2005, at 9:44:20
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.